Mrbogey:Koalaesq: Did anyone here actually see this movie? I assume most democrats didn't, not wanting to add to its box office gross. I know it was a hit piece, I just don't know how bad it really was.

I didn't see it and I believe the odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it. I at least have seen the Moore films I bash.

I only saw a couple of posts from my Conservative FB friends, and of course, they gave it glowing reviews about how accurate and "truthful" it was and how him winning the election would cause the earth to explode.

One really really nutty right wing friend who has been a paranoid moron about "the new world order" for about twenty five years now, said that after seeing the movie.."it all makes sense now!" I haven't heard from him since the election, but I have a feeling he's barricaded in his basement, behind sand bags, guns drawn, eating reconstituted food rations waiting for "the end".

Also, the author of TFA really doesn't seem to know how the movie business works. First, he fawns that 2016 was from the Oscar winning producer of Schindler's List, which, while true, is misleading. Spielberg had creative control over that movie and was the main reason for its success. Gerald Molen just made sure the production didn't run out of money.

The author also goes on a rant calling one of the films an HBO documentary. Newsflash, Jethro, that does not matter. As long as a film plays on at least one theater screen in a major market (usually New York or LA) before the end of the year, it can qualify for Academy consideration. The documentaries HBO picks up go around festivals for months before they ever air. HBO just gets it out to a wide audience.

FormlessOne:Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.

You can believe that, but, no, he didn't "play loose with the facts" (i.e., lie, like the movie in question) as much as he did play loose with the presentation of those facts. And, yes, he was nominated.

At the end of the day, a documentary should actually, well, document something. The only thing "documented" by that movie is the long slide into extremist insanity that many Republicans took as a result of Obama's Presidency.

I felt it did documented that rather well. If that had been the focus of the film itself, it may have a case but as is, no nod.

sprawl15:FormlessOne: You can believe that, but, no, he didn't "play loose with the facts" (i.e., lie, like the movie in question)

Eh, I still don't know what the point was of Bowling for Columbine. It kept building to a point, then losing itself by countering the point. And the most interesting parts of the movie tended to be blatantly false or imply the blatantly false (the instant gun at the bank, the KKK/NRA cartoon, the portrayal of the NRA's Colorado rally after Columbine, the bit about the NRA coming to Flint to talk about the shooting of the little girl, etc).

It tried to argue that guns themselves - or access to the guns - was the problem, then countered that with talk of Canada and Switzerland. It kind of shifted to it just being a violent mentality - that we're exposed to violence throughout our media to an extent not seen elsewhere and that begets more violence, but that was undermined by bringing up Japan (though a lot of Asian media tends towards hyperviolence). It kind of tried to attack the NRA, but none of the points were really based on anything but NRA bad.

I mean, I've seen it probably a half dozen to a dozen times and the best I can figure out is that he really wanted to make one movie and then changed his mind halfway through.

My impression as well. I think he started it out with"guns and access to guns *caused* Columbine"

moved to a less ridiculous"Gun culture, combined with access to guns and certain other cultural factors *caused* Columbine"

and then moved even further from his original point when he talked about other countries and arrived at"People are violent monsters sometimes and easy access to guns, which turns out to not be as easy as I originally though, turns a righteous ass kicking or a stabbing into tragedies like Columbine."

I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries. Same reason I love Exit through the Gift Shop. Banksy clearly doesn't know what the "point" of all that was, but he wanted to put it on tape. I get the feeling both he and MM made their respective films for themselves as much as for their audience. They wanted to go through the exercise in order to "unpack" a seminal event or series of events in their lives.

vygramul:Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.

See, I thought the overall crux of "Bowling..." was that violent tragedies in America such as the Columbine shooting are a result of many factors over many years that can't be tackled by addressing one part of it, and some serious introspection is needed before we can improve. The ease of access to guns; our perception of the role of guns (Costas touched on this when touched "gun culture" last weekend) on society; our violent history as a nation; our dependence on the military industrial complex; our "might is right" foreign policy; each of these play a role in our shooting tragedies that we see far too often in America. And yet, to nail down one as the sole cause of such a shooting is just as silly as arguing that bowling influenced Klebold and Harris to the Columbine.

And here's a big pre-emptive "go fark yourself" to the next person who tries to white knight poor, pitiful, Charlton Heston. You wanna be mad at somebody, be mad at the NRA for making a has-been with dementia their president. If your president can't represent you, then he oughtn't be the guy you trot out at every event to be the face of your organization. Or, to put it another way, you can't wear your big-boy pants if you have to put them on over diapers.

Mrbogey:I didn't see it and I believe the odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it.

The majority of the movie was based on a book that was already outright debunked as total and utter bullshiat, like the rest of the media produced by D'Souza. I mean, it's not much of a stretch to call a movie by known liar based on a book full of known lies an inaccurate movie. The criticisms don't really need to get more specific than that - he hasn't earned a thorough review, in terms of factual accuracy.

I guess I missed the point of Bowling for Columbine when I saw it. I thought it was: "American news and media has created a culture of fear that causes so many Americans to feel they NEED a handgun. This combined with improper training and storage of firearms leads to tragedies."

BeesNuts:I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries.

Eh, my problem was more that it didn't seem to really learn anything as a general arc. It went in asking what factors contributed to the Columbine massacre and went out saying "Dunno. But the NRA are douchebags."

I mean, it was good that he brought up some common justifications and threw them away (the Manson interview was interesting, but kind of hilarious since they listened to KMFDM and not Manson), but it seemed like he could have made ten times the documentary by cutting out most of his complaints about the NRA and replacing it with more social commentary about how tragedies like that occur. The attempt to kind of diffuse the blame from "It's because you have guns!" and "It's because violence on the TV!" was negated by constantly pointing and blaming the NRA - it's just as shallow an excuse as the others.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist:Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.

The vast majority of people who criticize Moore are under the impression that:

1) Documentaries must basically exist as unedited security footage with no bias, no editing, no editorializing, no perspective, no opinion, no point of view, etc.2) FOX news is a pinnacle of objective and unbiased journalism, because FOX news is fair and balanced.

Believing #1 is naive, but incorrect. Believing #2 is blatantly delusional. When "Bowling for Columbine" came out, I was amused that same people who were running websites debunking Moore's work as a documentary were also running websites debunking evolution as science, using similar arguments. Just because some guy on the internet calls something a lie doesn't make it so.

Does the Daily Show deserve to win awards in journalism, even though they say things that obviously aren't true? Well, it depends on whether or not the audience is in on the joke. Michael Moore is not unbiased, unedited truth. What most conservatives don't seem to realize is that he doesn't claim to be, and most of his fans don't interpret him as such.

vygramul:Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.

I'll tell you why- Moore conveniently neglected to mention the type of guns we Canadians have. They're single shot or limited magazine long guns, and they're owned almost exclusively by hunters and people in rural areas. Not exactly the kind of firearms that lend themselves to domestic disputes or holding up a liquor store, and certainly not the sort of thing that would rack up much of a body count in a crowded theatre. This was evident with Columbine- heavily armed, 12 dead, 21 injured. Canada had a copycat school shooting shortly thereafter in Taber Alberta- 1 dead, 1 wounded. Did our shooter just lack ambition and planning? Possibly, but that single shot .22 probably didn't help his cause.

I own 3 guns myself. All 3 are at my dad's place, 300km away. They only come out in the fall when we're hunting. Hell, I'm 45 years old, grew up in rural Alberta, and I've never even seen in person or held a pistol in my life. I know precisely 1 person that owns one for target shooting.

Moore's gun count might be accurate, but it doesn't begin to describe the difference in our gun cultures, which really is driven by legislation. He's right about the fear factor, though. We aren't constantly media whipped into a paranoid frenzy that would feed the need for guns either.

sprawl15:BeesNuts: I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries.

Eh, my problem was more that it didn't seem to really learn anything as a general arc. It went in asking what factors contributed to the Columbine massacre and went out saying "Dunno. But the NRA are douchebags."

I mean, it was good that he brought up some common justifications and threw them away (the Manson interview was interesting, but kind of hilarious since they listened to KMFDM and not Manson), but it seemed like he could have made ten times the documentary by cutting out most of his complaints about the NRA and replacing it with more social commentary about how tragedies like that occur. The attempt to kind of diffuse the blame from "It's because you have guns!" and "It's because violence on the TV!" was negated by constantly pointing and blaming the NRA - it's just as shallow an excuse as the others.

Except that the NRA are a bunch of douchebags.

They're not even advocating for gun rights anymore, they're transparently acting as another wing of the GOP. They supported the candidate who signed anti-gun laws in the past as governor over an incumbent president who hasn't. Why? Not because of guns. It's because they're douchebags.

Moore did a lot of "creative reinterpretation of reality" in that one. Hell, he does it in most of his work.

I'm sure it has a lot more to do with the quality of the film rather than the validity of the content. 2016 was abject nonsense and the whole world knows it. That a bunch of brain dead morans went to see it doesn't make it worthy of consideration for an award. "Fast and Furious" made 363 million dollars, but didn't sniff a nomination. Get over it, 2016 was a steaming pile of shiat.

The greatest movie ever in the "real world" outside of gay communist hollyfag is undeniably home alone 2. Until this outrage is corrected by taking away Obama's Nobel peace prize and giving it to Justin Beiber I will stop renting VHS tapes at the corner store each week and invest in the ammo required for the coming race war that Nostradomis predicted.

schrodinger:The vast majority of people who criticize Moore are under the impression that:

1) Documentaries must basically exist as unedited security footage with no bias, no editing, no editorializing, no perspective, no opinion, no point of view, etc.2) FOX news is a pinnacle of objective and unbiased journalism, because FOX news is fair and balanced.

Believing #1 is naive, but incorrect. Believing #2 is blatantly delusional. When "Bowling for Columbine" came out, I was amused that same people who were running websites debunking Moore's work as a documentary were also running websites debunking evolution as science, using similar arguments. Just because some guy on the internet calls something a lie doesn't make it so.

Does the Daily Show deserve to win awards in journalism, even though they say things that obviously aren't true? Well, it depends on whether or not the audience is in on the joke. Michael Moore is not unbiased, unedited truth. What most conservatives don't seem to realize is that he doesn't claim to be, and most of his fans don't interpret him as such.

The problem with Michael Moore is that he uses deceptive techniques to get people to say things they don't agree with and so he can later use clever editing to take quotations out of context or make individuals look stupid. He doesn't have bias, he fundamentally misrepresents people and opinions to strengthen whatever message he's cooked up for his movie.

EyeballKid:vygramul: Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.

See, I thought the overall crux of "Bowling..." was that violent tragedies in America such as the Columbine shooting are a result of many factors over many years that can't be tackled by addressing one part of it, and some serious introspection is needed before we can improve. The ease of access to guns; our perception of the role of guns (Costas touched on this when touched "gun culture" last weekend) on society; our violent history as a nation; our dependence on the military industrial complex; our "might is right" foreign policy; each of these play a role in our shooting tragedies that we see far too often in America. And yet, to nail down one as the sole cause of such a shooting is just as silly as arguing that bowling influenced Klebold and Harris to the Columbine.

And here's a big pre-emptive "go fark yourself" to the next person who tries to white knight poor, pitiful, Charlton Heston. You wanna be mad at somebody, be mad at the NRA for making a has-been with dementia their president. If your president can't represent you, then he oughtn't be the guy you trot out at every event to be the face of your organization. Or, to put it another way, you can't wear your big-boy pants if you have to put them on over diapers.

The problem is less with the core message and more with the continually dishonest rhetoric throughout the film, leaving out context and allowing easily misconstrued statements to remain unexplained. And those are the least of his sins. Splicing together different speeches to seem to be one and moving the context is disingenuous at best.

I'm not a member of the NRA for several reasons, but I don't like intellectual dishonesty, even when my side does it.

Especially when my side does it. It makes an otherwise worthy goal something that moves people who might otherwise be open to being convinced firmly into the opposition's camp.

unyon:vygramul: Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.

I'll tell you why- Moore conveniently neglected to mention the type of guns we Canadians have. They're single shot or limited magazine long guns, and they're owned almost exclusively by hunters and people in rural areas. Not exactly the kind of firearms that lend themselves to domestic disputes or holding up a liquor store, and certainly not the sort of thing that would rack up much of a body count in a crowded theatre. This was evident with Columbine- heavily armed, 12 dead, 21 injured. Canada had a copycat school shooting shortly thereafter in Taber Alberta- 1 dead, 1 wounded. Did our shooter just lack ambition and planning? Possibly, but that single shot .22 probably didn't help his cause.

I own 3 guns myself. All 3 are at my dad's place, 300km away. They only come out in the fall when we're hunting. Hell, I'm 45 years old, grew up in rural Alberta, and I've never even seen in person or held a pistol in my life. I know precisely 1 person that owns one for target shooting.

Moore's gun count might be accurate, but it doesn't begin to describe the difference in our gun cultures, which really is driven by legislation. He's right about the fear factor, though. We aren't constantly media whipped into a paranoid frenzy that would feed the need for guns either.

The guns used at Columbine are largely irrelevant. Even Canada has pump-action shotguns, which were some of the guns used. Most firearms homicides are not the victims of assault rifles, and about half of firearms deaths are suicides, so the semi-automatic nature of the weapon is pretty irrelevant. A man angry at his wife (domestic murder being high on the list) can go and get his rifle just as easily as his handgun. Drug dealers (the majority of violence - 84% of the homicides the year DC was "murder capital of the world") will get their automatic and semi-automatic weapons smuggled in with their bales of marijuana.

Access to glamorous and terrifying weapons is usually highly-overrated. Klebold's primary gun at Columbine was the scary-looking tec-9, a virtually isotropic bullet source. He would probably have done more damage using a single-shot rifle with the barrel sawed-off.